On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 04:49:01 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/31/2014 3:42 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Mike Spencer" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress writes:

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's
cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-)

Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or
anything along those lines enters into his econometric models.

I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling
impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact
(alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that
defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of
the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

How can the models account for the actions of financiers who are
smarter than the model makers?


Interesting point.
Model makers attempt to quantify the effects of things like supply
and demand.
Financiers are more concerned with manipulating the system for personal
gain. Manipulation may not follow statistical models. It may, in fact,
exploit vulnerable points in the model to systematically game the system.
My computer being five milliseconds faster than yours and
repeatedly beating
you to the punch is probably not in the model.

But that may not have a direct effect on jobs going overseas.

Most financiers are not involved in manipulating, but rather in
predicting where markets are going.

--
Ed Huntress